Two-Week Steroid Cycle and Protection from Gynecomastia
Ask Bill Roberts: Two-Week Steroid Cycle and Protection from Gynecomastia
Mr Roberts, I’ve been reading for the last several years to learn about anabolic steroids, because I definitely plan to use them someday. So far though I keep making gains without them and I want to master that first before moving to the next level.
I was glad to see you writing for Mesomorphosis again, I was always intrigued by your 2-week cycles and the results that Jim got. I was wondering what if anything has changed since then? Do you still recommend that route? On the forum it doesn’t seem that you’re talking about them much. Dave.
If you have the time and patience, which it seems you do, your approach of waiting until you need them with regards to anabolic steroid use has quite a bit to say for it. Obviously many have succeeded very well starting early in their training careers, but it seems very common for them to really not know how to train productively without steroids or even to believe that there is no such thing.
The most important change in doing 2-week cycles now versus 10 or 11 years ago is with regard to protection from gynecomastia. I then recommended using Nolvadex or Clomid, which were the proven methods at the time. Anastrozole (Arimidex) was starting to be used in bodybuilding, but it was more difficult to get than were the above two drugs and more importantly the dosing wasn’t as well understood as is the case today. Arimidex had a track record of adverse side effects that at the time I wrongly attributed to the drug but which should have been attributed to improper dosing driving estrogen levels too low.
Presently I recommend using letrozole or anastrozole in any cycle with aromatizing steroids as the preferred method for estrogen control, with use of SERMs (Nolvadex or Clomid) being reserved for post-cycle recovery.
However, if the latter drugs are what is on hand, they still work as well as ever for gyno protection.
The other thing of some importance is that there is more experience now with reducing “off” periods to two weeks or even sometimes one week. These options hadn’t been described in the earlier articles.
My view on two-week cycles was never that they are the only way to go, but that they are a good method and in many cases will best suit a given individual. That is still true.
The comparison to other cycle plans should, of course, be kept equal in terms of total weeks “on” per year and total drugs used. E.g., a person should not compare one 2-week cycle with one 14-week cycle and declare the latter to be superior because it gives more results. Instead the comparison should be of, say, seven 2-on / 2-off cycles versus one period of 14 weeks on / 14 weeks off.
That's very interesting given my lifestyle of 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on an oil rig. I know that for the last year I have used the ABCD diet which is basically a 2 weeks cyclic diet and have had great results, despite it being unorthodox. Different is not neccessarily worse. I would love to hear Vic chime in on this.